Was Ctesiphon's abandonment a fait accompli after the Muslim conquests?

[SavoyTruffle]

Ctesiphon was the big city of the Iranian empires between the Parthians and the Sassanians. It was the site of several battles and despite its strategic location proved more vulnerable to invasions, with the Romans capturing the city multiple times in its lifespan while their Iranian counterparts couldn't even capture Constantinople.

This also may have been why the Sassanian Empire took a bigger brunt of the Muslim invasions relative to the Romans, due to the city's proximity to the Arab heartland. Furthermore, Baghdad was established as the Abbasid capital, and much of the city's material was used in its construction, leaving the area an abandoned ruin by the turn of the 9th century.

Was this always gonna happen? Or is it possible that a Caliphate chooses to take over the city instead?

 

[Nivek]

Ctesiphon was the big city of the Iranian empires between the Parthians and the Sassanians. It was the site of several battles and despite its strategic location proved more vulnerable to invasions, with the Romans capturing the city multiple times in its lifespan while their Iranian counterparts couldn't even capture Constantinople.

I think this answer your question, plus the little love the Muslims hold against the Zoroastrians means that a city that was such important to the Sassanians wouldn't be considered worthy.

Was this always gonna happen? Or is it possible that a Caliphate chooses to take over the city instead?

Maybe a faster conquest? a more Persianophile Caliphs(Utman(PtH) and the Ummayds care little about the persian) would keep it?

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I think Ctesiphon's weakness was that you could literally build a city next to it and it would be as strategically important since Ctesiphon was not irreplaceable. This is more or less what happened before and after Ctesiphon. Its positioning was not as key as Constantinople. But this is just my opinion.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I think the main thing that doomed it was the ummayad tendency to found new garrison cities rather than station their armies within already existing cities- that's what killed Carthage, that's what killed Ctesiphon, that's what killed Alexandria.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

I think the main thing that doomed it was the ummayad tendency to found new garrison cities rather than station their armies within already existing cities- that's what killed Carthage, that's what killed Ctesiphon, that's what killed Alexandria.

Though to be fair Alexandria still found a way to bounce back (albeit with the locus of power in Egypt moving upriver to Cairo, after Alexander moved it to the delta).

 

[Nivek]

I think the main thing that doomed it was the ummayad tendency to found new garrison cities rather than station their armies within already existing cities- that's what killed Carthage, that's what killed Ctesiphon, that's what killed Alexandria.

Carthage was burned by the Romans in one of their retreats and both sides damage it badly too, the same Alexandria.

Though to be fair Alexandria still found a way to bounce back (albeit with the locus of power in Egypt moving upriver to Cairo, after Alexander moved it to the delta).

I think was could save Ctesiphon is that early Muslims used the old Sassanid palace as a mosque, make sure the earlier Wali/Governor like the city more and could push to keei it.

 

[Monter]

It should be noted that Ctesiphon's fall isn't an anomaly in Mesopotamian history, it is the same fate Uruk, Akkad and Babylon suffered, as a new power emerges it'll have to deal with the pre-existing powers in the existing urban area and the surrounding aristocracy, Seleucus dealt with the Babylonians by founding Seleucia at the Tigris and forcefully moved the population of Babylon there, having to start anew under Seleucian authority, the move to Ctesiphon at the other bank of the Tigris was the same thing at a limited form (we don't have much info for the Seleucian-Parthian transition).
So when the Arabs came Mada'in (as the Ctesiphon-Seleucia was known to the Arabs) lost its political importance, first to Kufa and then to Bagdad, the existing population had to move and submit to the new authority.

 

[Nivek]

It should be noted that Ctesiphon's fall isn't an anomaly in Mesopotamian history, it is the same fate Uruk, Akkad and Babylon suffered, as a new power emerges it'll have to deal with the pre-existing powers in the existing urban area and the surrounding aristocracy, Seleucus dealt with the Babylonians by founding Seleucia at the Tigris and forcefully moved the population of Babylon there, having to start anew under Seleucian authority, the move to Ctesiphon at the other bank of the Tigris was the same thing at a limited form (we don't have much info for the Seleucian-Parthian transition).
So when the Arabs came Mada'in (as the Ctesiphon-Seleucia was known to the Arabs) lost its political importance, first to Kufa and then to Bagdad, the existing population had to move and submit to the new authority.

Yeah but is not a fait accompli his end,it could still be a minor city in Iraq area with some luck

 

[tex mex]

I think Ctesiphon's weakness was that you could literally build a city next to it and it would be as strategically important since Ctesiphon was not irreplaceable. This is more or less what happened before and after Ctesiphon. Its positioning was not as key as Constantinople. But this is just my opinion.

Same thing happened to Babylon, Seleukia, Veh Ardashir, and Valashabad.

 

[Nivek]

Same thing happened to Babylon, Seleukia, Veh Ardashir, and Valashabad.

Regardless that doesn't mean Ctesiphon couldn't still be a city, the key is keeping people there